The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid ibn al-Walid Army[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Seems WP:PROMOTIONAL and does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how is this promotional. ISIL related articles seemed to be singled out for this accusation. Would the merger of the articles Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade, Jaysh al-Jihad, and Islamic Muthanna Movement into this article be allowed?. That'll make it notable and de-stub it. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotional, as at least the Muthanna Movement initially opposed the merger, and only went with it after one of its leaders was killed, showing that it the creation of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army carries real weigth with the participants. However, I also oppose a merger, because the three groups that now have united in the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army have very different backgrounds that warrant their own pages. Applodion (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid! we can't have it kept, when the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Mhhossein (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, can the 3 articles I listed be merged under an article of this name to make it more notable? Editor abcdef (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The very first thing which should be done in order to keep the article is to find enough reliable sources regarding the subject. I mean, firstly you have to prove that the subject deserves to stay. Then, we can decide if it other articles would better be merged into this one. Mhhossein (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Group clearly meets the general notability guidelines, lets not assume good faith: proposed deletion seems to be just vandalism from an Iranian shiite with an obvious conflict of interest who goes around damaging the wikipedia by proposing deletions of any sunni pages he doesnt like. all objective editors can see the article is notableSmith1122 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is at least as notable as dozens of other articles about groups fighting in the Syrian Civil War. Gazkthul (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.